This bill amends Section 67-1085A, Idaho Code, to require state agencies to disclose executed agreements to the state controller and to create an enforcement pathway when agencies fail to report. It standardizes what must be filed, tasks the controller with maintaining a centralized public listing, and gives the controller tools to monitor and escalate noncompliance.
The change is consequential for agency compliance teams and procurement officers: it centralizes contract visibility across state government, imposes recurring certification obligations on agencies, and links sustained noncompliance to possible budgetary consequences. For external partners and watchdogs, the measure improves access to basic contract metadata while preserving statutory public-record exemptions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires agencies to submit any executed memorandum of understanding, memorandum of agreement, master agreement, sub-agreement, or contract to the state controller through a designated portal within ten business days of execution. It directs the controller to maintain and publish a centralized listing of reported agreements.
Who It Affects
All state officers, departments, divisions, bureaus and agencies of Idaho must comply; the Department of Administration continues to report statewide contracts while individual agencies report sub-agreements. The state controller will expand its reporting systems and monitoring functions, and the legislature gains a new annual noncompliance report.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a single public source for basic contract metadata, tightening transparency and fiscal oversight. It also introduces administrative deadlines and an enforcement path (notice, cure period, and potential budget holdbacks) that will force agencies to prioritize contract reporting or face downstream consequences.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute starts by defining terms—agency, agreement, master agreement, MOA, MOU, and sub-agreement—so the rule is applied to both formal contracts and many kinds of intergovernmental or external engagements. That matters because it narrows ambiguity about what must flow into the controller’s system: MOUs and MOAs are treated as reportable agreements even if they differ in legal bindingness.
Once an agreement is executed, agencies must send a report through the state controller’s reporting portal. The law ties reporting to execution rather than payment or performance, which pushes administrative teams to capture contract metadata at signing.
Agencies may update the original submission when amendments occur instead of filing a new, separate record; the statute explicitly requires recording the last amendment date and any extended end date in the original entry.The bill also establishes recurring housekeeping: each agency must annually review its reported agreements and certify their accuracy and completeness by January 1, with the certification signed or acknowledged by the agency head or an authorized representative. That certification creates an internal control point and an auditable trail that the state controller can use during monitoring and escalation.On the oversight side, the controller publishes the collected metadata in a centralized, publicly accessible list subject to existing public-record exemptions.
The office is given monitoring responsibilities and a stepped enforcement sequence for failures to report: written notice of a missed filing, a 30-day cure window with the option to notify the controller of a fixed compliance date (capped at 60 days), and an annual escalation report to legislative staff. The statute also contemplates potential budgetary consequences for agencies that remain noncompliant after these steps, and it authorizes the controller to issue guidance on reporting procedures and maintain that guidance alongside the public listing.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Agencies must file any executed MOU, MOA, master agreement, sub-agreement or contract with the state controller within ten business days of execution.
Required reporting fields include document title, execution date (and end date if applicable), participating entities, a brief purpose summary, an agency contact (name, email, phone), any amendments, and the agreement’s monetary value and funding sources.
Agencies must annually certify the accuracy and completeness of their reported agreements by January 1; the certification must be signed or acknowledged by the agency head or an authorized representative.
If an agency fails to report, the state controller gives written notice; the agency then has 30 days to cure or may commit to a firm compliance date not to exceed 60 days; the controller compiles an annual list of agencies that failed to cure and provides it to the Legislative Services Office by January 5.
An agency that remains noncompliant after cure opportunities may face potential budgetary holdbacks for the following fiscal year at the discretion of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, contingent on legislative budget approval and the governor’s final sign-off.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Scope and meaning of key terms
This section lays out precise definitions for agency, agreement, master agreement, MOA, MOU, and sub-agreement. The practical purpose is to remove ambiguity about whether a document counts as a reportable agreement; the statute treats MOAs as legally binding and MOUs as non-binding but reportable, so agencies cannot rely on the internal label alone to avoid reporting.
Timing and channel for submitting agreements
Agencies are required to submit executed agreements through the state controller’s designated reporting portal within a ten-business-day window after execution. By anchoring the requirement to execution and mandating the portal, the law forces agencies to capture and centralize contract metadata early in the lifecycle rather than waiting for invoice or payment activity.
Minimum metadata the controller must receive
Reports must include the document title, execution and end dates if applicable, participating entities, a short summary/purpose, agency contact details, any amendments, and monetary information (total cost, funding sources, payment schedule). That set of fields is designed to make the published list useful for oversight, procurement analysis, and public searching without forcing full contract publication by default.
How to handle contract modifications
Amendments do not trigger a separate reporting obligation; agencies update the original submission with the date of the last amendment and any revised end date. Operationally, this encourages agencies to maintain a single canonical record per agreement and reduces duplicate entries, but it also requires internal version control so the original submission accurately reflects the current contract state.
Narrow exemptions and allocation of reporting responsibility
The statute exempts employment-related agreements with state employees (except settlements), routine invoices and purchase orders, student housing and financial aid agreements between institutions and students, and short-term template agreements. The Department of Administration must report statewide contracts it executes, while agencies remain responsible for sub-agreements they execute under master or statewide contracts.
Agency attestations to accuracy
Each agency must annually review and certify its reported agreements by January 1; the certification requires signature or acknowledgment by the agency head or an authorized representative. That creates a recurring compliance checkpoint that agencies should embed in their fiscal-year and procurement calendars.
Controller’s monitoring role and staged enforcement
The state controller must maintain the published list and monitor agency compliance. When the controller identifies a missing report, it must issue prompt written notice; the agency then has 30 days to cure or may notify the controller of a compliance date not to exceed 60 days. If the agency fails to cure, the controller prepares an annual report of persistent noncompliance for the Legislative Services Office by January 5.
Potential budgetary consequences, guidance authority, and timing
An agency that remains noncompliant after the cure process may be subject to potential budgetary holdbacks for the following fiscal year at the discretion of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, subject to legislative budget approval and the governor’s final approval. The controller may develop and publish a guidance policy describing submission mechanics and portal use. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, under an emergency clause.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Legislators and legislative staff — Gain a centralized, searchable feed of basic contract metadata and an annual list of persistent noncompliers, improving oversight and budgetary decision-making.
- Public watchdogs, journalists, and citizens — Benefit from easier access to contract titles, dates, parties and monetary information (subject to public-record exemptions), enabling faster public scrutiny of state engagements.
- State procurement and compliance officers — Receive clearer statutory expectations and a standard portal for filings, which can reduce ad hoc reporting and improve cross-agency visibility into master/sub-agreement relationships.
- Vendors and vendors’ counsel — Get improved market visibility and can more quickly determine which agencies hold related statewide or master agreements, aiding business development and risk assessments.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual state agencies — Must build or refine internal tracking to capture executed agreements within the 10-business-day window and perform annual certifications, adding administrative labor and likely requiring process changes or staffing.
- Department of Administration and agency contracting teams — Face coordination costs to ensure statewide contracts and sub-agreements are correctly attributed and reported, which may require systems integration or new workflows.
- State controller’s office — Must expand or maintain the reporting portal, public listing, monitoring systems, and guidance materials; those technical and operational costs land on the controller’s budget and staff capacity.
- Smaller agencies and boards with limited compliance capacity — May struggle to meet the new timelines and certification requirements, making them more vulnerable to escalation or the reputational effects of being listed as noncompliant.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits strengthened statewide transparency and fiscal oversight against state agencies’ operational capacity: it requires rapid, centralized reporting and creates meaningful consequences for noncompliance, but those benefits come at the cost of new administrative burdens, systems work, and potentially politicized enforcement—no solution in the bill fully eliminates that trade-off.
The statute pushes transparency and accountability but leaves several operational and legal questions open. The ten-business-day clock ties reporting to execution rather than cash flow or performance, which increases administrative pressure immediately after signing; agencies lacking automated contract-management tools will need manual workarounds.
The law requires publication of minimum metadata but relies on existing public-record exemptions for withheld material, which raises implementation questions about what gets redacted, who makes that call, and how quickly redaction decisions occur.
The enforcement path is intentionally graduated, but its most consequential tool—potential budgetary holdbacks—depends on multiple political approvals (the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, the legislature’s budget approval, and the governor). That makes the threat credible in theory but procedurally cumbersome in practice; in many cases, the mere prospect of holdbacks may spur compliance, but follow-through will involve political judgment.
Finally, the controller’s discretion to develop guidance is useful but places significant reliance on that office to produce clear, stable rules and technical systems; under-resourced guidance or a brittle portal would undermine the policy’s transparency goals rather than advance them.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.